Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:36 pmPosts: 339Location: United States of America

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:48 pm

I'm a monist; without the brain, there is no "mind."

As for the morality question, I believe in neither good nor evil. Of course, I have a subjective view of what is permissible and what is not. But that means next to nothing when it comes to assessing reality. It also makes it difficult to formulate rules by which people "ought" to live, because nothing "ought" to be.

So he was a monist in disguise? Or he was a monist, and didn't even knew it!

The standard interpretation of Parmenides has been that he was openly a monist. It is one thing to distinguish between reality and illusion, but another altogether to think that so doing establishes ontological dualism. If one has an illusory experience, it need not indicate that the 'object' of the illusory experience has being, although one might very well think that it does. Many philosophers do not, however. I learned Parmenides as a monist, but I know that there is a dispute nowadays about this. Unfortunately, I cannot attempt to adjudicate the issue because my specialty is analytic philosophy, and especially formal logic, not the Ancients. Of course, that is not to say that I couldn't look into it, but I have not done so at the time of this post.

Thanks, Scorpio.

You are right to be confused, 'cause all the posts here are just plain thick dilentantism, including my own. At least I admitted so on an earlier post.

Personally, I find irrationalism responsible for the loss of what I believe it's our only weapon in this world. And that weapon is logic.

By the way, this is one of the few times that I agree with einvolk (even partially because I see a lot of dualistic semen in racialism).

Your "only weapon in this world" is logic?! That's IT?!

Stalin was logical, too... if you know what I mean. He wanted to keep his power and it was LOGICAL to send those that were against him to the Gulag, or kill them.

Logic is a method, a set of axioms and rules, something formal, as far as I can see it. It is something to help us think right, not "our only weapon in this world". Not to mention that by saying "weapon" you define an attitude that...

ahhh, I'm not going to write on this thread no more. It's useless. Sorry Mors, and thanks Scorpio.

What is a philosopher? In my view, it is someone who concerns himself with a particular set of questions(metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc), usually of an abstract nature, and attempts to justify his position with argumentation.

Plato however draws the vast majority of his arguments via unreal examples and imaginary systems (Republic, the Cave story etc). He denied the real world and he just got stuck in his imaginary world. That's why I call him a theologist and not a philosopher.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Personally, I find irrationalism responsible for the loss of what I believe it's our only weapon in this world. And that weapon is logic.

By the way, this is one of the few times that I agree with einvolk (even partially because I see a lot of dualistic semen in racialism).

Your "only weapon in this world" is logic?! That's IT?!

Stalin was logical, too... if you know what I mean. He wanted to keep his power and it was LOGICAL to send those that were against him to the Gulag, or kill them.

Logic is a method, a set of axioms and rules, something formal, as far as I can see it. It is something to help us think right, not "our only weapon in this world". Not to mention that by saying "weapon" you define an attitude that...

ahhh, I'm not going to write on this thread no more. It's useless. Sorry Mors, and thanks Scorpio.

By saying weapon I didn't meant that literally

Stalin however wasn't logical. The will to power is strictly based on sentiments and not in logic. At least that's how I see it.

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

I think I understood, but your word choice was a tad unconventional. I cannot quite recall anyone ever saying they saw the semen of something in something else through metaphors

_________________

Agonizer wrote:

My views may be extreme, and you may not agree with them. That's your perogative. At least I'm a cum dumpster.

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

I think I understood, but your word choice was a tad unconventional. I cannot quite recall anyone ever saying they saw the semen of something in something else through metaphors

Well, in Greek we use the word "sperma" (the greek word for semen) when we want to refer to something like "hints".

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

I think I understood, but your word choice was a tad unconventional. I cannot quite recall anyone ever saying they saw the semen of something in something else through metaphors

Well, in Greek we use the word "sperma" (the greek word for semen) when we want to refer to something like "hints".

That's odd. Is this done in polite conversation?

_________________

Agonizer wrote:

My views may be extreme, and you may not agree with them. That's your perogative. At least I'm a cum dumpster.

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

I think I understood, but your word choice was a tad unconventional. I cannot quite recall anyone ever saying they saw the semen of something in something else through metaphors

Well, in Greek we use the word "sperma" (the greek word for semen) when we want to refer to something like "hints".

That's odd. Is this done in polite conversation?

Of course. In fact it's more often seen in formal conversations than informal ones.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

What is a philosopher? In my view, it is someone who concerns himself with a particular set of questions(metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc), usually of an abstract nature, and attempts to justify his position with argumentation.

Plato however draws the vast majority of his arguments via unreal examples and imaginary systems (Republic, the Cave story etc). He denied the real world and he just got stuck in his imaginary world. That's why I call him a theologist and not a philosopher.

First, those unreal examples are intended to be allegorical. When you read Plato talking about shadows in the cave, for instance, he is using a story to intuitively convey what he believes to be the relation between the world of forms and that of matter. These examples are not intended to prove anything to you, nor are they to be taken on faith. He also argues for the truth of his positions throughout the text. In so doing, I do not doubt that he sometimes constructs strawmen which are easily knocked down, although a similar view that is more carefully considered would be difficult to refute. That said, he attempts to convince the reader with 'rational' arguments, which makes him a philosopher. The difference between a pure theologian and a theistic philosopher is that the former supports his statements by appeals to a holy book or to revelations, and the veracity of these is unquestioned. A theistic philosopher, on the other hand, does not glaringly refer to questionable evidence as if it were absolutely authoritative. I'm aware that this distinction is murky around the edges, but I think Plato clearly qualifies as a philosopher.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Stalin however wasn't logical. The will to power is strictly based on sentiments and not in logic. At least that's how I see it.

It is fair to say that Stalin was unconcerned with higher moral principles, but he was rational in the sense that he usually acted in such a manner as to advance his goals. That is, he did not often take actions contrary to the realization of his ambitions.

Quote:

Pathological_Frolic, racialism if you ask me is a dualistic philosophy that place our race in the position of ultimate good and an alien race in the position of ultimate evil. At least, that's what I conclude from my everyday life.

That is an extreme interpretation. One could quibble over what 'racialism' is, but it does not appear to require that one believe that one's race is the greatest good and others are the greatest evil. Quite possibly, a racialist might not consider others evil, but rather undesirable. Certainly, not everyone with whom one does not wish to associate is 'evil.'

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Logic is a method, a set of axioms and rules, something formal, as far as I can see it. It is something to help us think right, not "our only weapon in this world". Not to mention that by saying "weapon" you define an attitude that...

Yes, I basically agree that a logic is a formal, axiomatized system. There are a great many different logics and which one is best is difficult to determine. It really depends on what you're trying to do. There is no one logic that is perfect for everything. Logic is actually quite self-contained. One can construct derivations within a logic without concern for what the logic might be used for. Similarly, although the semantics for a logic sometimes point to its uses, there are typically alternative semantics which are just as 'good' and appear completely abstract.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

What is a philosopher? In my view, it is someone who concerns himself with a particular set of questions(metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, etc), usually of an abstract nature, and attempts to justify his position with argumentation.

Plato however draws the vast majority of his arguments via unreal examples and imaginary systems (Republic, the Cave story etc). He denied the real world and he just got stuck in his imaginary world. That's why I call him a theologist and not a philosopher.

First, those unreal examples are intended to be allegorical. When you read Plato talking about shadows in the cave, for instance, he is using a story to intuitively convey what he believes to be the relation between the world of forms and that of matter. These examples are not intended to prove anything to you, nor are they to be taken on faith. He also argues for the truth of his positions throughout the text. In so doing, I do not doubt that he sometimes constructs strawmen which are easily knocked down, although a similar view that is more carefully considered would be difficult to refute. That said, he attempts to convince the reader with 'rational' arguments, which makes him a philosopher. The difference between a pure theologian and a theistic philosopher is that the former supports his statements by appeals to a holy book or to revelations, and the veracity of these is unquestioned. A theistic philosopher, on the other hand, does not glaringly refer to questionable evidence as if it were absolutely authoritative. I'm aware that this distinction is murky around the edges, but I think Plato clearly qualifies as a philosopher.

I can see your point. But still Plato considered some things to be absolutely authoritative. For example, he considered that a person must obey the law without any exceptions.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Stalin however wasn't logical. The will to power is strictly based on sentiments and not in logic. At least that's how I see it.

It is fair to say that Stalin was unconcerned with higher moral principles, but he was rational in the sense that he usually acted in such a manner as to advance his goals. That is, he did not often take actions contrary to the realization of his ambitions.

You're falling in a fallacy here though. You used the the word ambition, didn't you? And what an ambition is? The desire of someone to achieve his / her goals. And desire is a sentiment. It has nothing to do with logic. At least that's my interpretation

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Good and evil as absolute values don't exist in the same way that pure white and pure black don't exist as shades, only the spectrum of greys. It's a similar principal to finding an absolute meaning of life or this one ultimate creator or all.

There's too much else in the world for there to be only two extreme values for anything.

So yeah, I'm a non dualist I guess!

_________________

Satanic_Shoe wrote:

And it really gets my blood boiling when people say I should listen to 'happy music'. And my usual response is: BUT HAPPY MUSIC IS SHIT! And not because it's happy. It's because happy people suck at making music!

You're falling in a fallacy here though. You used the the word ambition, didn't you? And what an ambition is? The desire of someone to achieve his / her goals. And desire is a sentiment. It has nothing to do with logic. At least that's my interpretation

I disagree because I do not think that logic alone can tell you what you ought to do. That is like thinking that ZF set theory can determine whether or not you should give to the poor. I fail to see how such things are remotely plausible. I do think that one can use powers of reasoning to decide whether his actions are conducive to realizing his goals, though.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

You're falling in a fallacy here though. You used the the word ambition, didn't you? And what an ambition is? The desire of someone to achieve his / her goals. And desire is a sentiment. It has nothing to do with logic. At least that's my interpretation

I disagree because I do not think that logic alone can tell you what you ought to do. That is like thinking that ZF set theory can determine whether or not you should give to the poor. I fail to see how such things are remotely plausible. I do think that one can use powers of reasoning to decide whether his actions are conducive to realizing his goals, though.

It's not necessary to live with logic alone. Sentiments are welcomed. The overreaction of sentiments is that that leads you to act illogically.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

I can see your point. But still Plato considered some things to be absolutely authoritative. For example, he considered that a person must obey the law without any exceptions.

Yes, but he attempted to support his position with arguments, not appeals to fundamental divine authority(i.e., divine authority taken as basic or not in need of justification). Also, I recall that in one of the dialogs, he said that one can break an bad law, but he must face the consequences of so doing.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

It's not necessary to live with logic alone. Sentiments are welcomed. The overreaction of sentiments is that that leads you to act illogically.

Well, when one becomes too impassioned, it can cloud his reason and lead to failure. Nonetheless, I don't believe that reason can ultimately tell a man what he should do. It can merely help him along the path that he has chosen by some other means.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Logic is actually quite self-contained. One can construct derivations within a logic without concern for what the logic might be used for. Similarly, although the semantics for a logic sometimes point to its uses, there are typically alternative semantics which are just as 'good' and appear completely abstract.

By this I guess you mean logic became over-abstract and distanced itself from reality and every-day usage? Like a game within itself?

By this I guess you mean logic became over-abstract and distanced itself from reality and every-day usage? Like a game within itself?

I think of logic as a branch of mathematics, basically. You have a syntax, and rules of inference and axioms which are used to construct derivations. You have semantics, which specifies which statements are valid. Generally it is considered ideal that provability implies validity(soundness) and validity implies provability(completeness), but you do not always have these metalogical results. For instance, in second order logic, there is no completeness. However, as unfortunate as this may seem, it has its advantages. To give a concrete example, in first order Peano arithmetic, which is a theory comprised of non-logical axioms and first order logic, there are true statements such that they cannot be proved or disproved, nor are they semantically entailed by the axioms, nor is their negation semantically entailed. The best known example of such a statement is a canonical Goedel-Rosser sentence. However, second order Peano arithmetic does semantically entail its canonical Goedel-Rosser sentence, but its deductive system cannot prove it, since it is subject to Goedel's first incompleteness theorem, just as was first order Peano arithmetic. What I'm trying to say here is that different logics have different strengths and weaknesses and also, they often have completely different applications.

BTW, I agree that modern logic is often distant from everyday usage. For instance, the development of intuitionistic logics was motivated by mathematical considerations, and you can forget about categorical logic which could scarcely be more abstract. However, philosophers are interested in modern logic because in many ways it is in fact useful for clarifying ordinary language. A good example of this is modal logic, which can be used to create logics of belief, knowledge, moral obligation, time, possibility and necessity, etc. The philosopher then has to pick out the logic that best models our intuitions about these topics.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

Scorpio, thanks for the detailed reply. I only studied basic logic (so far) and I'm not very good at it (but not very bad either, I think). Your reply is way over me, but I think I get your point.
I think logic is very important, but many people (read: philosophy students) hate it because it "feels" a lot like mathematics, and usually people who choose to study philosophy don't REALLY like maths. At least that's the situation in my country, and it's too bad. Note that I said most people.

Scorpio, thanks for the detailed reply. I only studied basic logic (so far) and I'm not very good at it (but not very bad either, I think). Your reply is way over me, but I think I get your point.I think logic is very important, but many people (read: philosophy students) hate it because it "feels" a lot like mathematics, and usually people who choose to study philosophy don't REALLY like maths. At least that's the situation in my country, and it's too bad. Note that I said most people.

Interesting. I am not familiar with the philosophical trends in Romania, but I know that much of Europe follows the continental tradition, excluding the UK and Scandinavia. Continental philosophy is more similar to literature, whereas analytic is more similar to math. In the US, upper level philosophy is heavily analytic. I know a lot of fellow students who have an extensive maths or computer science background, and are interested in formal systems. If I had not opted for philosophy, I would have majored in one of those. In fact, I should have done a dual major, but I did not pull my act together until too late, not that it's a big deal.

_________________It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. -Bertrand Russell

I can see your point. But still Plato considered some things to be absolutely authoritative. For example, he considered that a person must obey the law without any exceptions.

Yes, but he attempted to support his position with arguments, not appeals to fundamental divine authority(i.e., divine authority taken as basic or not in need of justification). Also, I recall that in one of the dialogs, he said that one can break an bad law, but he must face the consequences of so doing.

False. Regarding to the law Plato did not dispute anything. It was an undisputable truth that noone was able criticising (read his dialogue with Crito for that part).

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

Scorpio, thanks for the detailed reply. I only studied basic logic (so far) and I'm not very good at it (but not very bad either, I think). Your reply is way over me, but I think I get your point.I think logic is very important, but many people (read: philosophy students) hate it because it "feels" a lot like mathematics, and usually people who choose to study philosophy don't REALLY like maths. At least that's the situation in my country, and it's too bad. Note that I said most people.

Basically, I dislike maths cause I cannot see them applied in my every day life. Whereas languages and philosophy seems a lot more practical to me. However, I do like arithmetics cause they are applicable.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!

I can see your point. But still Plato considered some things to be absolutely authoritative. For example, he considered that a person must obey the law without any exceptions.

Yes, but he attempted to support his position with arguments, not appeals to fundamental divine authority(i.e., divine authority taken as basic or not in need of justification). Also, I recall that in one of the dialogs, he said that one can break an bad law, but he must face the consequences of so doing.

False. Regarding to the law Plato did not dispute anything. It was an undisputable truth that noone was able criticising (read his dialogue with Crito for that part).

Quote:

if besides these things you should say to me, O Socrates, we now indeed shall not be persuaded by Anytus, but we shall dismiss you, though on this condition, that afterwards you no longer busy yourself with this investigation, nor philosophise, and if hereafter you are detected in so doing, you shall die, - if, as I said, you should dismiss me on these terms, I should thus address you: O Athenians, I honour and love you: but I obey Divinity rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able, I shall not cease to philosophise, and to exhort and indicate to any one of you I may happen to meet, such things as the following, after my usual manner.

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:36 pmPosts: 339Location: United States of America

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:04 pm

Mors_Gloria wrote:

Scorpio wrote:

Mors_Gloria wrote:

By saying weapon I didn't meant that literally

Stalin however wasn't logical. The will to power is strictly based on sentiments and not in logic. At least that's how I see it.

It is fair to say that Stalin was unconcerned with higher moral principles, but he was rational in the sense that he usually acted in such a manner as to advance his goals. That is, he did not often take actions contrary to the realization of his ambitions.

You're falling in a fallacy here though. You used the the word ambition, didn't you? And what an ambition is? The desire of someone to achieve his / her goals. And desire is a sentiment. It has nothing to do with logic. At least that's my interpretation

Can you describe a situation that doesn't involve desire? Everything we do is motivated by desire. Does that mean no human action has ever been logical?

I can see your point. But still Plato considered some things to be absolutely authoritative. For example, he considered that a person must obey the law without any exceptions.

Yes, but he attempted to support his position with arguments, not appeals to fundamental divine authority(i.e., divine authority taken as basic or not in need of justification). Also, I recall that in one of the dialogs, he said that one can break an bad law, but he must face the consequences of so doing.

False. Regarding to the law Plato did not dispute anything. It was an undisputable truth that noone was able criticising (read his dialogue with Crito for that part).

Quote:

if besides these things you should say to me, O Socrates, we now indeed shall not be persuaded by Anytus, but we shall dismiss you, though on this condition, that afterwards you no longer busy yourself with this investigation, nor philosophise, and if hereafter you are detected in so doing, you shall die, - if, as I said, you should dismiss me on these terms, I should thus address you: O Athenians, I honour and love you: but I obey Divinity rather than you; and as long as I breathe and am able, I shall not cease to philosophise, and to exhort and indicate to any one of you I may happen to meet, such things as the following, after my usual manner.

einvolk, if I recall correctly you called me "these anti-cop people like Mors_Gloria"

I think that emanated from a conversation about Hrisi Avgi and your idea that they have police connections, though that was a ridiculous assertion - look at the failed apprehension of the 17N (who agree with on some aspects) members or the fact that not only did the police stand aside but actually helped the Leftists attack Hrisi Avgi's headquarters

einvolk, if I recall correctly you called me "these anti-cop people like Mors_Gloria"

I think that emanated from a conversation about Hrisi Avgi and your idea that they have police connections, though that was a ridiculous assertion - look at the failed apprehension of the 17N (who agree with on some aspects) members or the fact that not only did the police stand aside but actually helped the Leftists attack Hrisi Avgi's headquarters

On this very topic you just have to look into this week's episodes in Athens. 100 Antifascists were prosecuted while no member of Hrisi Avgi was prosecuted. Ironically, Hrisi Avgi members stabbed two antifascists while cops were next to them. The cops of course didn't re-act at all to these stabbings. In a policeman's car Stoxos magazine was found (one of the National Socialist magazines of Greece). Add to that the fact that cops and Hrisi Avgi members were talking to each other before the episodes were talking to each other in a friendly manner. Here are photos and videos to prove it:

einvolk, if I recall correctly you called me "these anti-cop people like Mors_Gloria"

I think that emanated from a conversation about Hrisi Avgi and your idea that they have police connections, though that was a ridiculous assertion - look at the failed apprehension of the 17N (who agree with on some aspects) members or the fact that not only did the police stand aside but actually helped the Leftists attack Hrisi Avgi's headquarters

On this very topic you just have to look into this week's episodes in Athens. 100 Antifascists were prosecuted while no member of Hrisi Avgi was prosecuted. Ironically, Hrisi Avgi members stabbed two antifascists while cops were next to them. The cops of course didn't re-act at all to these stabbings. In a policeman's car Stoxos magazine was found (one of the National Socialist magazines of Greece). Add to that the fact that cops and Hrisi Avgi members were talking to each other before the episodes were talking to each other in a friendly manner. Here are photos and videos to prove it:

I do not know about USA but in Greece cops and Hrisi Avgi members go hand in hand.

its all Greek to me

but what about the other information I presented?

the ADL controls the police in the US - I have been entered in a domestic terrorist database solely because of my tats - at one point I couldnt even leave the country to visit my folks though I have never been prosecuted for anything above a moving violation

the anti-fa may think they are revolutionary, but are only working to maintain the status quo - no different than the college revoltionaries we have here - true revolution would be the rejection of the egalitarian values which have been sold to us by the intellectuals (the professors who are actually just the priests of new religion of the Western World - political correctness)

the ADL controls the police in the US - I have been entered in a domestic terrorist database solely because of my tats - at one point I couldnt even leave the country to visit my folks though I have never been prosecuted for anything above a moving violation

the anti-fa may think they are revolutionary, but are only working to maintain the status quo - no different than the college revoltionaries we have here - true revolution would be the rejection of the egalitarian values which have been sold to us by the intellectuals (the professors who are actually just the priests of new religion of the Western World - political correctness)

Now on regards to Antifa (AFA, Antifascist Action and all that). I am not in good terms with those guys. Being antifascist (in a true sense) does not mean to track down and beat Pagans and Hindus that use Swastika for religious purposes. Being antifascist is about protecting minority groups being attacked by fascist like creatures (Hrisi Avgi and PATRI.S. members in Greece).

Nowadays, AFA is not better than Hrisi Avgi. Both of them are enemies of any true Anarchist. True revolution is the rejection of modern-day values. A rejection of dualistic thought. A rejection of all religions and political systems. In other words, a rejection of society as a whole.

_________________

Panopticon at Flag Burner, Torch Bearer wrote:

Tonight all flags must burn in place of steeples. Autonomy must return to the hands of the people!